Sudan is greater than its wars, and this covenant is a practical step toward building a homeland that embraces everyone
As Sudan's war enters its fourth year, a coalition of civil society groups has offered the country a blueprint for what peace might look like — a charter calling for civilian rule, federal decentralization, transitional justice, and the separation of religious and state authority. The document, unveiled under the aspiration of building a new nation, reflects both the hunger for democratic renewal and the deep fault lines that any post-war Sudan will have to navigate. That the National Umma Party could endorse much of the vision while objecting to its most philosophically charged provision speaks to a truth older than Sudan itself: agreeing that change is necessary is far easier than agreeing on what change means.
- Sudan's civil society groups are racing to define a democratic future even as the war that began in April 2023 continues to displace millions and deepen one of the world's gravest humanitarian crises.
- The charter's ambitions are sweeping — civilian control of the military, ICC cooperation, dismantling the pre-coup regime's structures, and banning the former ruling party — signaling that its authors want accountability, not just a ceasefire.
- The separation of religion and state has emerged as the charter's sharpest fault line, with the National Umma Party warning that forcing the issue now risks fracturing the very consensus the document is meant to build.
- The party's partial endorsement — supporting civilian democracy while rejecting the secular framing — reveals that the coalition is united on the destination but divided on the constitutional soul of the state they hope to build.
- The charter's signatories are pressing regional and international actors for support, knowing that a shared civilian vision means little without the political leverage to bring armed parties to the table.
A coalition of Sudanese civil society organizations has unveiled a political charter titled 'Towards Building a New Nation,' offering a shared framework for ending the country's war and constructing a democratic, civilian-led state. Building on a declaration first issued in Nairobi in 2025, the document brings together groups including the Civil Democratic Alliance for Revolutionary Forces, the Baath Party, and the Sudan Liberation Movement — an attempt to forge consensus among forces that do not agree on everything.
The charter is broad in its ambitions. It envisions a decentralized federal system, equal citizenship as the basis of all rights, and a military firmly subordinate to civilian authority. On justice, it calls for cooperation with the International Criminal Court, compensation for victims, and the dismantling of structures tied to the regime that preceded the October 2021 coup. Economically, it prioritizes reconstruction in long-neglected regions — Darfur, Kordofan, the Blue Nile, the East, and Northern State — and promises free education, healthcare, and protections for women, children, and people with disabilities.
The charter's most contested provision is its call for separating religious authority from state power. The National Umma Party, which participated in the drafting process, stopped short of rejection but issued serious reservations, arguing that such a fundamental question of national identity should be resolved at a future National Constitutional Conference rather than settled in advance by a political document. The party's leadership contended that forcing the issue risks deepening divisions at a moment when Sudan most needs unity.
The disagreement is real but incomplete — the National Umma Party affirmed its commitment to civilian democracy and endorsed much of the charter's content. The signatories, for their part, have pledged to pursue their goals through peaceful mass mobilization, reject any settlement that restores military dominance, and call on international partners to support the transition. What the charter ultimately reveals is that Sudan's democratic forces share a destination but are still negotiating the road — and that the hardest arguments may be waiting on the other side of the war.
A coalition of Sudanese civil society groups has put forward a political charter designed to chart a path out of the country's devastating war and toward a functioning democracy. The document, unveiled under the banner 'Towards Building a New Nation,' represents an attempt to unite the country's fractured democratic forces around a shared vision of what comes after the fighting ends—a vision centered on civilian rule, accountability for war crimes, and a state that separates religious authority from government power.
The charter builds on a declaration of principles first issued in Nairobi in 2025. It arrives as Sudan continues to bleed from a conflict that began in mid-April 2023, one that has displaced millions and created one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The groups behind it—including representatives from the Civil Democratic Alliance for Revolutionary Forces, the Baath Party, and the Sudan Liberation Movement—are attempting something difficult: getting people who disagree on fundamental questions to agree on a framework for moving forward.
The document itself is ambitious in scope. It calls for a decentralized federal system that would distribute power away from the capital, establish equal citizenship as the foundation for all rights and duties, and ensure that the military answers to civilian authorities rather than the reverse. On the question of justice, the charter demands a comprehensive accounting process that would include handing over suspects wanted by the International Criminal Court, compensating victims, and dismantling the structures of the regime that ruled before the October 2021 coup. It also proposes banning the activities of the dissolved National Congress Party and its affiliated organizations.
Economically, the charter envisions a reconstruction effort that prioritizes the poor, guarantees free education and healthcare, and directs resources toward regions devastated by decades of conflict—Darfur, Kordofan, the Blue Nile, the East, and Northern State. It promises protections for women, youth, people with disabilities, and children, and commits to addressing the psychological and social damage the war has inflicted on the population.
But the charter has already encountered resistance on one of its most contentious provisions: the separation of religion and state. The National Umma Party, a significant political force that participated in the drafting meetings, has expressed serious reservations about this element. In a statement, the party's leadership, headed by Secretary-General Dr. El Wathiq El Barir, argued that framing the issue in such direct terms is counterproductive and risks deepening divisions at a moment when the country needs broad consensus. The party contends that questions of national identity and the relationship between religion and governance are too complex and historically laden to be settled through a political charter. Instead, they should be debated and decided at a National Constitutional Conference that would bring together all Sudanese voices once the war has ended.
Yet the National Umma Party stopped short of outright rejection. The party endorsed much of what the charter contains and reaffirmed its commitment to ending the war and building a civilian-led democratic future. The disagreement, in other words, is real but not total—a sign that even among those working toward peace, fundamental questions about what kind of state Sudan should be remain unresolved. The charter's signatories have committed to pursuing their goals through peaceful means: building a unified civilian front, engaging in mass peaceful struggle, and rejecting any settlement that would restore military involvement in governance or reward those who started the war. They are also calling on regional and international actors to support Sudan's democratic transition and counter the rhetoric that sustains the conflict.
What happens next depends partly on whether these groups can hold together and partly on whether the military forces currently fighting will agree to negotiate. The charter represents a vision of Sudan's future, but visions are only as powerful as the political will behind them. The National Umma Party's objections hint at battles yet to come—not over whether democracy should return, but over what kind of democracy, and what role religion should play in it.
Citações Notáveis
Raising this sensitive controversial issue in this simplistic and direct manner is regrettable and does not serve the broad consensus that the country needs at this critical stage in its history— National Umma Party statement on the separation of religion and state
A comprehensive political solution is a historical duty that cannot be postponed— Declaration of Principles Forces coalition
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the separation of religion and state matter so much that it would cause a major party to object to an otherwise shared vision?
Because in Sudan, identity and governance have never been cleanly separated. For decades, the state used Islam as a source of legitimacy and control. Asking people to accept a secular framework feels, to some, like asking them to abandon part of who they are as a nation.
But the National Umma Party didn't walk away. They endorsed most of the charter. What does that tell us?
It tells us that even those with deep reservations recognize that ending the war and restoring civilian rule matters more right now than winning the argument about religion. They're saying: let's agree on how to stop the killing first, and have the harder conversation later.
Is that a stable compromise, or a time bomb?
Probably both. It buys time and creates space for negotiation. But these questions—identity, the role of faith in law, what it means to be Sudanese—they don't disappear just because you postpone them. They'll resurface when the constitution is written.
The charter mentions transitional justice and handing people over to the ICC. How realistic is that?
That's the hardest part. It requires the people currently fighting to agree to be held accountable. It requires a functioning state to enforce it. It requires the international community to actually follow through. Right now, all three are uncertain.
So what's the charter actually worth?
It's a statement of intent from people who want a different Sudan. It's not a guarantee. But it's also not nothing. It shows that even amid war, there are Sudanese who are thinking about what comes next and trying to build consensus around it. That matters.